metalgearfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Scrapping "trivia" sections
I believe we should actively avoid using the "trivia" sections within articles and move towards ceasing their use altogether. Most have information that can be readily integrated into more suitable sections, creating easier readability and access to specific info. Trivia by their nature are disorganized lists of miscellanea and not particularly helpful as reference material. Sometimes a list is a better way to present some information than standard prose, but these can be filtered down to a particular theme. Any thoughts on whether or not this would be a good idea are welcome. --Bluerock 20:15, March 12, 2012 (UTC) :I'm supporting this. There's behind the scenes and notes & references sections to put the same information that goes in trivia.--Technobliterator 22:05, March 12, 2012 (UTC) ::I'm not certain about actively avoiding trivia sections altogether, but we certainly should cut back on Trivia. I can't say we should avoid them altogether because there are some things that can't really be integrated into either in-universe sections (such as the history section or personality/traits section), or definite out-of-universe sections (behind the scenes/gameplay section). Case in point, claiming in the History section of the Kidnapper article that it bears some resemblance to the Cypher UAVs deployed in 2007-2009 would seem extremely awkward, as the wording doesn't really fit something regarding a historical context. It also doesn't fit inside something like the behind the scenes section because the way it is written reflects in-universe materials, whereas behind the scenes sections deal with out-of-universe related info. Anyways, just my take on it. Weedle McHairybug 07:14, March 13, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, Cyphers are are simply a development of the same technology (UAVS), so it would appear to fit the "history" section, or if not, maybe a new section altogether. These kind of points can stay in the trivia lists, until they can be tidied up or reworded appropriately. I've often find that having these lists simply encourages users to add information in a random fashion, rather then making it fit with the article as a whole. --Bluerock 18:55, March 13, 2012 (UTC) I don't personally have a problem with the Trivia section. If you are concerning about users adding random trivia, then make a template (like the one for the Unconfirmed history section) so users can understand what to do. That is what I think. Omega Fighter 19:03, March 13, 2012 (UTC) :The trouble is what guidelines one can actually give, since trivia by its nature encompasses everything. If a suitable section doesn't exist for relevant information, a more meaningful one should be created, rather than dumped into a list with no particular theme. This has actually been accomplished in one example with the usage of the "Characteristics and traits" sections. --Bluerock 19:14, March 13, 2012 (UTC) ::You're right about trivia in general, Bluerock. I hadn't thought about that. However, like Weedle said, some examples may pose a problem. If a middle ground can be established (putting trivia in other sections if it fits), then I have no problem. In that case, the Trivia section should only be used for trivia that doesn't fit the other sections. Omega Fighter 19:36, March 13, 2012 (UTC)